Thought this might interest some folks, so I've decided to share a tale of one author's successful networking.  Back in 2007, I went to the World Fantasy Convention.  While there, I visited the bar one night.  In the bar, I met this bloke named Al Robertson.  We got to talking over some beers, and it turned out we enjoyed many of the same authors.  A conversation about Clark Ashton Smith led to each of us talking about stories of our own that were influenced in some way by Smith's work.

Al ended up telling me about a story he'd had in mind for years, but had yet to sit down and write.  I told him it sounded really interesting and encouraged him to send it along to me when he finally cranked it out.  Some months later I came across a submission in the slush: "Changeling" by Al Robertson.  This was the story he'd told me about, and while my drunken memories of that night had gone somewhat hazy, I did remember saying to send this one along.

So I gave it a read and liked it.  I also thought it could use a little work, so I requested a rewrite.  A little back and forth ensued as we discussed the particulars, but ultimately I decided to pass the rewrite along to Shawna for further consideration.  Shawna ended up passing on it, but some months later I received an email from Al, letting me know that it had been accepted by Andy Cox for Black Static.  This is a great magazine to publish in, so his story's journey definitely had a happy ending.

Now I give 99.9% of the credit here to Al (I'll split the other .1% with publisher/editor, Andy Cox, with the majority of it going to Andy), but when he contacted me to let me know about the sale, Al was quite appreciative for the feedback  I gave him during that rewrite.  And since he'd had the story in mind for years, I suppose I can take a tiny bit of credit for encouraging him to send it along to me.  But he wrote it, he rewrote it, and he submitted it.  Still, Al was appreciative enough that today I received a care package from him, containing the issue of Black Static with his story (as well as an issue of Interzone containing another story of his (that I had nothing to do with)--go, Al!)  This was an awfully nice gesture, especially considering that he sent these magazines all the way from the UK.

So while Al deserves the credit, I should point out that it didn't start with him writing the tale.  It started with his networking.  Now I have no idea if Al is an old pro when it comes to networking or if it comes naturally to him.  Either way, he did it the best possible way: he didn't network at all.  By this I mean that he didn't coming into the bar seeking an editor that he might dazzle with his story ideas.  He just wanted a few good brews and some enjoyable conversation.  He was just looking to have fun at a con.  And that is the true key of networking, I think.  Just engage someone in friendly conversation and let everything go from there.

I would guess it was at least two hours and some drinks later before I took it upon myself to say, "Send it to me."  That's something I rarely do.  But it was clear--even in my inebriation--that Al wasn't trying to sell himself or his story.  I liked the idea too, and he seemed intelligent.  So I wanted to see what he did with it.  And as a result I ended up with a couple of free issues, not to mention Al's gratitude.  Sweet deal. 

And the true genius of it all?  Al didn't even ask me if I wanted to see it.  I told him to send it.  Now that's networking!

Congrats again, Al!  Looking forward to sharing more brews with you in the future.  
 

      

So this whole William Sanders mess is showing no signs of settling down anytime soon.  I posted some of my thoughts in a comment over at samhenderson's blog, but I think I should post them here as well (and in more detail).  As you might expect, after Sanders made his "sheethead" comment in a rejection letter the author subsequently posted online, controversy ensued.  But his comment engulfed more than just him, that author, and the group of people his language was targeting.

It engulfed all the authors who have contributed fiction to Helix.  For those unaware, fiction that sells to Helix stays in their archives.  In that respect, it makes authors permanently associated with the site.  And following the Sanders fiasco, these authors are forced to ask themselves a question I doubt any of them ever envisioned: do I want to be associated with this site?  Do I want my fiction taken down from there?

Given what started the controversy, it's a very uncomfortable question to ask yourself.  On the one hand, Helix was building itself a nice reputation for producing some quality speculative fiction.  Having your work archived in such a place gives you a chance for exposure to new readers all the time.  OTOH, Williams' comment--regardless of the legal implications of whether or not it should have been posted online--is bigoted.  It's creating a negative image of Helix in the public eye.  And authors find themselves faced with the moral implications of leaving your work up, as well as the professional implications of taking your work down.  I've read the blogs of a number of Helix authors addressing this very subject, either why they're taking their work down (and I can't believe Sanders reacted as he did) or why they're leaving it up.  I've read other blogs like this.  These are just the ones I came across today.  Unless you're one of the few Helix authors unaware of this situation, you've probably given this matter some thought.  I doubt anyone that has reached a decision one way or the other has done so lightly.

Personally, I'm glad I'm not in the situation where I'm faced with this choice.  But I will say this, and here's the "for the record part."  If you're an author who  has published in Helix, I don't consider you guilty by association.  If you choose to leave your fiction there, it doesn't bother me.  If you have choose to have your fiction taken down--for whatever reason--I don't have a problem with that either.  If you mention Helix in your cover letter I'm not going to hold it against you.  And building on that, when I saw Helix in your cover letter, it meant something.  It still does/will.  The personal comments of one its editors will not erase the fact that you published a story on a site that had built a reputation for publishing quality fiction.  And if you took your fiction down from Helix, as far as I'm concerned you can still mention in your cover letter that you've published there (not that I expect you will, but just saying).

I will not speak for other editors on this matter, but that's my take.  If your story is a slush submission, I am 100% certain that when reading your manuscript I can make the distinction between your artistic achievement--both being published in Helix as well as reading the story in front of me with an impartial eye--vs. the comments of one man.  One doesn't influence the other, at least not for me.  You are not responsible for what was said, so there is no reason to punish your blood, sweat, and tears when you submitted to Helix in good faith.  So while I may not approve of the original comment that started everything, I still look upon your publication in Helix as meaningful.

Just my for the record.   

So my last post noted the run of short story editors who have landed in hot water over the last year and change.  I cited six different examples.  # 3 was about myself, and while I didn't post the links (my main argument being the other examples had drawn far more attention and mine was hardly worthy of mentioning in comparison to the others), I said that if anyone wanted links they merely needed to ask and I would dig them up.  No one has asked so far, but the offer stands.  # 6 was something I noted as not being a controversy yet (though certainly a controversial statement from the jump), but looked as if it might become one, which was why I was posting it.

Well, it seems I was right.  Once Sheila Williams, the current editor of Asimov's, feels compelled to respond and defend Gardner Dozois, her predecessor, I'd this post has moved into the realm of controversy.  You can judge for yourself the worth of her comments (there are a lot of them, so scroll down to those on 7/12), but I think she handles herself in a thoughtful and classy manner.

I'm not surprised this one became controversey.  After reading about so many of them for the past year and change, it's pretty easy to spot another one in the making.  It's all about who said or did what (or didn't), and who or how many are objecting and leveling accusations as a result.

So, how long before another controversy erupts surrounding another short story editor?  I'd say less than four months.

So in yesterday's post I swore off flame wars and such.  Time will tell if I keep to my word.  But while I've sworn off these miserable wastes of time, I couldn't help thinking about them in a somewhat analytical light.  And I noticed some stuff.  Or at least I think I did.  I'm putting it out there to see if people agree, as well as what they think.

When it comes to the big debates in the speculative community on the internet, the ones that really get people's hackles up, is it my imagination or does it seem that lately many of the biggest ones have revolved around stuff going on in the short fiction community?  And doesn't it seem that it's often a fiction editor at the heart of the controversy?  Take a look at the last year or so and here's the stuff that comes to mind for me (note: I'm going to try to provide links with a wide range of views to keep this as impartial as possible):

1) Whether Gordon Van Gelder was reading women's submissions with an unfair bias for The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction.  Here we have the publisher and senior editor of the one oldest and most respected print magazines in our field being called into question.

2) Not long after that came the much anticipated and updated article about whether there was gender bias among the major speculative magazines, which comes back to all the editors of these magazines.  There was much pre and post-discussion regarding this one.

3) I'll add that I've had a spat or two during this period regarding issues with short fiction, but I'm an assistant editor as opposed to an editor.  Also, I don't think my spats earned such widespead attention that they can be mentioned in the same e-breaths as these other examples.  Of course, if anyone would like to call me out on these matters (friend or foe or other) say so under comments and I'll dig up links.  I'm not going to pretend to be squeaky clean, but IMO these other examples really did draw greater attention. 

4)  Then last month we had the controversy surrounding Jonathan Strahan only having one woman appearing in the TOC of his anthology.  So we've moved away from magazines in this scenario, but we're still dealing with an editor of short speculative fiction. 

5) Even more recently (as in a couple of days ago) there was the controversy surrounding William Sanders, one of the co-editors of Helix Quarterly, when he used an offensive term in a rejection letter to a writer, and the writer posted said rejection online (and subsequently took it down).   As you might expect, this one isn't even close to winding down yet.  And this one deals with an online magazine.

6) And now we have the latest one.  It's not a raging controversy just yet, but given the above examples I wouldn't be surprised if it turns into one, so I've decided to mention it.   This one wonders if Gardner Dozois' rejection letters may have been less than savory because he focused on the legal implications of the William Sanders situation as opposed to the issues of bigotry.  As I said, not a raging controversy just yet, but I'm seeing signs that it might erupt into something more.  For the sake of completion, I'll note that this one targets the former fiction editor of Asimov's, and the editor of the last 25 editions of Year's Best Science Fiction, the current grandaddy among the speculative year's best anthologies.

So these are the examples I can think of off the top of my head.  Feel free to mention others if they occur to you.  I'm not commenting on any of them here, and I've tried to be as fair as possible in providing links to a wide range of opinions.  Tempest (she of link # 6) and I don't even get along, but I don't mind giving her this bump in traffic (though I strongly suspect her blog does more traffic than mine overall) because I'm rather curious about this topic.  So what do you think, folks?  Is there a pattern here that should make us expect more of the same to follow with unfortunate regularity, or am I grasping at straws?  And if there is a pattern, what do you make of editors being put under this constant microscope?  Is it fair and right, and how much (if it all) is the internet distorting information or leading to miscommunications?  The blogosphere is rather notorious for this sort of thing.

I realize that posting this sort of question and providing these links one on top of the next risks fanning a lot of flames, but hey, I'm the assistant editor at Realms of Fantasy.  This matters to me.  I'll ask people to keep things civil, though I worry this may not be a realistic request ...

Before I get into the meat of this post, just so no one thinks I'm exposing an author's unpublished story in an unfair manner, let me first state that I asked the author if it would be all right by her if I blogged about this.  She said fine.  I also offered to keep her name secret and to not disclose any specific details about the story.  She said don't worry about it.  Lastly, I offered to let read the post first, to make certain it met with her approval.  She told me to blog away.  So with all that stated, let me continue with what promises to be a lengthy post ...  
 

If you live outside the U.S., how do snail-mail vs. email submisions impact your personal submission habits?

How do snail-mail vs. email submissions policies at the magazines impact your personal submission habits?

So I was doing a little surfing of the web, and I stumbled across something I haven't looked at in almost three years: Carina Gonzalez's old slush site.  To those of you unaware, Carina Gonzalez was my predecessor at Realms of Fantasy.  She stepped down in April '05 and I started in May (my third anniversary draws near), though she did finish a final batch in her possession shortly after I started.  Although I never met her in person, during those first couple of months Carina was very instrumental in helping me make a smooth transition into her old position, either in answering some questions I had via email, sharing her records, or asking authors in places like the defunct Rumor Mill to be patient with me as I settled into my role.
  
Anyway, every editor has a particular method to the madness.  Carina's method involved this site.  It wasn't part of her official duties, but I imagine setting it up made her life easier.  I could have continued maintaining the site, and I think some writers wanted me to.  But as I said, every editor has a different method.  Like Carina, I keep careful records.  I just don't post them.  To placate antsy authors about the status of their stories, I opted to speed up our response times.  Just about everyone hears from me within 30 days (from when I pick up a slush batch, mind you, not necessarily from when you send your submissions).  This actually makes my life much easier, since I rarely have to confront a batch of 300+ manuscripts.  I can set a pace that is acceptably fast for the writers but not overwhelming to me or my time.

At this point, my system is in place.  After almost three years on the job, very little crops up that my method doesn't account for.  It's fascinating (to me) to see how much my system differs from Carina's.  I don't use the grading system Carina describes, though there are similarities.  I'm also allowed to hand out YFOPs. :)  In talking with Shawna over the years, I've also learned about other ways Carina and I differ, but I don't need to list every last tidbit.

But for me, this was the most interesting feature on Carina's old site.  I don't know if the total is comprehensive for Carina's time with the magazine, although I know Shawna had me re-slush Carina's last batch of slush survivors.  I rejected all of them but one, and that one ended up being accepted.  So I consider "The Grand Mal Reaper" by Scott William Carter to be our slush survivor.  So if I count this tale as a full slush survivor for each of us (and if I count Eugie's two stories as two separate slush survivors for Carina), the count is still Doug 18 slush survivors in under 3 years, Carina 9 slush survivors in under 4 years.

:)

Sorry, but I'm very competitive when it comes to slush survivors.  Just ask JJA!